Global Warming Caused by Human Impact is Negligible

Global warming. The term evokes visions of scorching global temperatures, droughts of biblical proportions, deserts forming on an epic scale, and death for mankind. And yet synonymous with the term is that humans are solely responsible for this cataclysm. But is this really the case? The fact is, most people are simply not well enough informed on the subject or have not looked closely at the historical evidence. They are simply left to being persuaded by the negative dogma surrounding the subject that is being perpetuated by those with their own political agendas.....sorry Mr. Gore. The earth is a very dynamic planet, sure it may seem very static and unwavering, but you must think beyond your frame of reference. Our short lives are very insignificant compared to the life cycle of the earth. Ice core data taken from Antarctica reveal that for as long as the records go back, nearly 800,000 years, that the earth has experienced a cyclic pattern or warming and cooling that revolves on a 100,000 year cycle. We are currently in what is known as an interglacial period which is why the glaciers are receeding. In fact, they have been receeding for at least the last 15,000 years, well before human influence and the burning of fossil fuels. Accordng to the latest core samples taken from the sea floor under the Antarctic ice shelf, the glaciers have to melt much more to return to levels that were seen in previous interglacial periods. In February 2013, global warming activists were stunned by the retreat of one of their former UN scientists. Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of the UN IPCC, declared CO2”s “heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase.” So let us try and mitigate our influence upon the earth the best we can, but most importantly, we need to accept that the earth's climate does and will change. Let us prepare for how we will deal with these natural changes when they occur

Jun 26 2013:
Hello. Lets assume climate change isn't occuring faster than it should. Lets assume that the CO2 released on a daily basis by billions of cars, buses, factories, etc. just find a valve and escape into outer space. Does the same happen with cancerigenous substances also massively released by humans into waters, into the air we breathe, into food?

The only problem resulting from human activity isn't faster global warming - which means, at first, that many places on earth will become inhabitable - pollution is itself a problem - an imediate public health enemy number one. Everybody speaks about a miraculous cure for cancer, for example, but none would dare to speak as loud about how much pollution propiciates the denvelopment of cancer and other deseases...

Also a thing worth letting you know about climate change is that is an exponential phenomenon. And much of that because of certain humans. Let us see:

The more trees are cut the less carbon is offset, the more carbon stays on the atmosfere, the warmer it gets more ice sheets melt, it gets warmer, more air conditioning, more pollution, warmer, more deserts, less plants, less carbon off setting.... There are many more factors feeding the phenomena and feeding each other.

Jul 23 2013:
You're quite right, Jake, in your recitation of the Earth's history and its natural climatic fluctuations. It's good to see that you've studied this history, which is well known to all climate scientists. Unfortunately, your conclusion that human impact on the climate is negligible is completely unsupported by anything you've stated and is clearly false.

You spent your set-up explaining how the Earth has a dynamic climate history. You call that "evidence," but it isn't that. Ii has nothing to do with whether recent and current human activities are impacting the climate. We could find that impact has occurred whether the Earth is in a cooling, warming, or stable trend, and the overwhelming consensus of skilled geo-physicists and -chemists, climatologists and related specialists (not Mr. Gore) around the world - who are fully aware of climate history and of all the variables you've pointed to - is that the impact of human-mediated gas releases since the Industrial Revolution is having serious climatic consequences. The notion that these thousands of scientists from most of the world's counties are colluding in some common political agenda can't be taken seriously.

I see that you've added further examples to the thread, of variations in the Earth's insolation rates due to Milankovich cycles and so forth. Again, the scientific judgement has been made against that well-known background.

While you're undoubtedly right that most people don't understand the climate problem well, dismissing the scientific work as unserious and politically motivated in no way helps understanding. I happen to be a biologist who has taught the history of Earth climate. I happen to live a couple of miles from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the world's largest climate data bank, and know from contact and conversations with scientists there that politics has nothing to do with their conclusions. Nor, of course, with mine: The consensus report of the IPCC has got it about right.

"But each one of those compilations reflects input from hundreds of these kinds of records from corals. We do similar things with ice cores. We work with tree rings. And that's how we discover what is truly natural and how different is the last century, right? "

"But here's what we can say: what's natural in the last thousand years is that the planet was cooling down. It was cooling down until about 1900 or so. And there is natural variability caused by the Sun, caused by El Ninos. A century-scale, decadal-scale variability, and we know the magnitude; it's about two-tenths to four-tenths of a degree Centigrade. But then at the very end is where we have the instrumental record in black. And there's the temperature up there in 2009. You know, we've warmed the globe about a degree Centigrade in the last century, and there's nothing in the natural part of that record that resembles what we've seen in the last century. You know, that's the strength of our argument, that we are doing something that's truly different."

"And here's the thing: you have to go back about 15 million years to find a time when CO2 levels were about what they are today. You have to go back about 30 million years to find a time when CO2 levels were double what they are today. Now, what that means is that all of the organisms that live in the sea have evolved in this chemostatted ocean, with CO2 levels lower than they are today. That's the reason that they're not able to respond or adapt to this rapid acidification that's going on right now."

So, Charlie Veron came up with this statement last year: "The prospect of ocean acidification may well be the most serious of all of the predicted outcomes of anthropogenic CO2 release. . . . but for the sake of the oceans, we have to cap or limit CO2 emissions as soon as possible.

Jul 4 2013:
Your profile suggest you are a wartime vet. Thank you for your service. Keep your gun(s). You, I know, have the training & experience to use that weapon. As in 'engage brain before engaging trigger.' Scientists have a command structure that isn't all that different from the military. Lots of supervision, millions of dollars & occasionally lives- (i.e. medical research) at stake, & reputation is everything. 'A career' can be a fragile thing in both the military & in University based science.

As to getting rid of carbon dioxide (CO2): Burn fewer fossil fuels, less pollution (CO2 & otherwise) from industrial processes; grow more trees & plant biomass to fix carbon & increase O2 levels. That much is a no-brainer. We know where the CO2 comes from & we know how to get rid of it. That's High School science. Everyone understands that part.

"Yep, low hanging fruit." - what's that? I'm just quoting the TED videos which TED streams from the TED website. AND I'm quoting them here on the TED website. Did I say that I heard all this on TED?

And did I say that this guy Dunbar is a highly respected climate scientist? They don't give TED talks to just anyone. You don't get to 'make-this-stuff-up' because he'll get caught & lose his job if he does. Most of all, he'll lose his reputation. None of his peers will respect him. In the military, that's how officer careers end. University science isn't all that different.

Science is not a conspiracy. The internet, personal computers, LCD TV's, & video game consoles are important products that came from Scientific Research (& not from the scientific conspiracy). Stuff has to work. You have to understand how to make stuff. Science comes first. These are not 'politicians' (or lawyers) that we are talking about here. Those guys 'shade-the-truth' all the time. Scientists can't do that. Global warming? If Dr. Dunbar says 'worry' - maybe I should?

Jul 4 2013:
Juan, Thank You.
I think I have said what I think about scientist who beat the CO2 bell in the climate change saga.
You stated my entire argument in your second paragraph which is right out of the propaganda from the global warming crowd. "cut back on fuels, use bio mass, cut back on CO2 and all will be well" Do you know that there are more forest on the North American Continent then the last 200 years for example.

It's not that they are on TED, They are best friends with Al Gore, they had dinner at the white house... they have little understanding on the dynamics of climate, or find the complex to difficult to deal with, I don't know, but what every scientist in every other field seems to have concluded is that global Climate is all over the place, with all most no rhyme or reason and the most we know about it is what we can see what has happened. Predicting climate??? They can't tell me if it's going to rain next week.

Jul 3 2013:
Jake,
This conversation was a nice try at a rational approach to a hot political potato. Been there, done that failed miserably
There is no way to quell the notion that all is needed is a reduction in organic combustion and all will go back as it was before..... I am not sure of before what, I am thinking that it was before 1650... that would mean I would lose my old PC which I use to harangue the multitude, a pleasure too sweet to relinquish.
Some won't acknowledge that Global Climate is a dynamic force that is conditional on a multitude of things, many of which mankind doesn't even know about yet. This so called scientific effort to focus on CO2 levels, I believe, is because the so called scientist don't have a clue and CO2 is really low hanging fruit.
I know that's disrespectful, but when scientist gather so closely under the skirts of politicians, I begin to lose respect.

I have a lot of sympathy for Jake .. here's why:
I am still hooked on cigarettes courtesy of the same spin doctors who have programmed Jakes world-view. The scientific understanding of the risk of tobacco was published well before I had to smoke for political acceptance in my peer group. That was a matter of survival in a redneck mining town.

One can escape the coal valley - but it's a lot harder to escape the valley you bring with you.
And it is that valley that our leaders are forced to traverse.
They all know .. they are all doing mitigation as fast as they can, and all that stands in their way .. is us.

Jul 1 2013:
I might do that Mitch when I have some time. What I've come to learn though is that once people hold a position or opinion, it is very difficult to change their views, even with abounding evidence. They'll always find away to discredit it. Like those strong in religious faith that deny the validity of carbon dating and all other sciences for that matter.

There is a huge problem going on in humanity right now .. and it's not being noticed properly.
The only reason I know about it was from reading a DeBono book a while back (DeBono "I am Right/You are wrong" Penguin ISBN 0-14-012678-3).
The problem is this: Humans cannot know the truth - they can only know their perceptions.
During the 90's politicians and media personalities quietly acknowledged this .. it made a lot of pennies drop and allowed them to fully comprehend what Edward Bernays was on about with public relations.
THis was a total ground-shift .. leaders and marketeers stopped worrying about the truth - there was no point if you could simply adjust perceptions.

The climate debate has been almost totally drowned in this .. spin and manipulation thickly covers the reality.
To actually cut through this snowstorm of manipulation, you need to go to the actual scientific papers and read them.
These are the closest we can get to truth - they record the data, the methods and the models.
These are the only things that can be debated if your objective is to move closer to truth.
If you do anything else, it is just more spin and manipulation.
De Bono was right, but we need to acknowledge our weakness in this area and make the effort - if, and only if, the truth matters to us at all.

Jul 24 2013:
You realize that what you're saying about those close-minded people is exactly the same thing that those close-minded people are saying about you. All of you are sharing the exact same, overwhelmingly convincing sense of certainty regarding the correctness of your views and you see quite clearly where the flaw is in the other person and their staunchly entrenched views. Isn't that a least a little bit striking? Doesn't it make some tiny voice in your head wonder if you might be as well be talking about yourself? You wrote:

"I might do that Mitch when I have some time. What I've come to learn though is that once people hold a position or opinion, it is very difficult to change their views, even with abounding evidence. They'll always find away to discredit it. Like those strong in religious faith that deny the validity of carbon dating and all other sciences for that matter."

You might as well have written:

"I might do that Mitch when I have some time. What I've come to learn though is that once I hold a position or opinion, it is very difficult to change my views, even with abounding evidence. I'll always find away to discredit it. Like those strong in religious faith that deny the validity of carbon dating and all other sciences for that matter."

Laurentide Ice Sheet - This will give you an idea of just how much glacial ice has melted since the end of the Younger Dryas period circa 15,000 years ago. Glacial ice has been melting and is continuing to melt.

Albedo Effect - There is evidence to support that deglaciation is happening faster now than before the industrial revolution, which many point to increasing CO2. Although CO2 is no doubt a factor, the albedo effect may be a more influencial force on the warming climate.

CO2 Lags Temperature, Not Leads - So yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus does contribute to warming, question is how much. Historically, whenever earth's temperatures have risen, so has CO2, however CO2 lags temperature. Interesting. So the earth also releases CO2 gas, not just humans?

New Evidence Reveals CO2 Levels at 425ppm circa 12,750 Years Ago - We're currently at 390ppm, which is 100ppm higher than we typically see for an interglacial period, at least as far as the ice records reveal, about 800,000 years. But looks as though there were peroids without human impact that may have been just as high as today.

Jul 1 2013:
Ice Age at 2000ppm - There was an ice age in the Carboniferous Peroid at 2000ppm circa 450 million years ago. Even one in the late Ordovician Period around 4000ppm. Clearly other factors regulate glabal temperature besides CO2 levels.

ANDRILL Provides Insight - This drill is sitting on the McMurdo Ice Shelf and bores through the ice and sea water to recover core samples from the sea floor. The cores are layered, revealing sections of rocky deposits, followed by sediment layers, and back to rocky, and so on. These rocky layers are formed when the ice shelf is present, as rocks carried by the glaciers melt off the ice and are deposited on the sea floor. Layers of fine sediment indicate no glacial shelf was present. These periods coincide with the Milankovitch Cycles and according to the data, the glacial ice at this site must completely melt away in order to reach previous interglacial periods (I should mention that we are in an interglacial peroid now and should still have 10,000 years or so before cooling should begin).

So I think people should understand that the earth is in a natural state of warming. As I have said, we should reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels, not only because of air pollution and possible climate effects of prolonged heavy burning, but because it's not sustainable. We humans have roughly 250,000 more mouths to feed on a daily basis, so population increase will demand huge amounts of energy, in as little as 25 years.

Humans will find a way to adapt to changing earth climates and temperatures. A .01 percent increase (100ppm) in atmospheric CO2 levels will not drive us to extinction.

What I find fascinating about all this is that we get distracted from the bedrock assumption. That is that C02 absorbs and re-emits infra red radiation. The net affect being that it warms the air - i.e. elevates the equilibrium energetic state of the air - i.e. average temperature.
The whole greenhouse debate was initiated on this observation. When measurements were taken to see if it was observable in our atmosphere .. it is.

I've taken the time to read Lennart Bengtsson's article. And, although it is more of a policy statement than a scientific observation, I agree with him wholeheartedly.
The subject of anthropogenic climate change has become intractably politicised. I have seen it before .. it's just part of how humans seem to operate.
Whenever there is a clear crisis, it gets exploited to the maximum .. change is always like that. So what happens is that the actual issue gets completely left behind as agendas get developed to exploit it. Once an agenda is set, it gets defended by those who stand to benefit - either by "fluffing-up" the problem or by denying it.

Here's where my personal view resides:
AGW is proven to my satisfaction.
The pause in temperature rise over the last decade indicates that we have missed something.
My understanding of physics leads me to suspect - that the energy rise expected, has somehow translated into kinetic form instead of thermal form. But I'm not all that surprised .. when you look at how non-linear/chaotic systems operate, they get into phases of infinite fractal recursion .. you can see it in fluid dynamics. Such infinite regression cannot be supported by physics beyond the quantum limits, so it has to go somewhere else. My early intuition was that it would manifest in faster, more energetic expressions of ocean oscillations - El Nino, etc. Seems right.

Jun 26 2013:
I am no scientist but I do observe nature and have for years. When folks think (or speak) about global warming, they talk about the ice sheets, water levels, and CO2 content, which is fine but there is much more to the issue and one that is being slightly over looked. What is nature doing on a smaller level? Like bird migrations, plankton blooms, whale stranding, insect invasions, and the list goes on & on. The animal kingdom is changing its habits world wide. It has been slow but sure in developing and has become more pronounced lately. Many feel it's because habitats have been disrupted in various ways by humans but it goes deeper then that. Our very own planet is reacting to global conditions and the animal kingdom is preparing for these changes.
Sure! The planet goes through cycles of various kinds but this time humans have added more fuel for this fire.

Climate does change naturally and throughout history more than 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have become extinct. Continents float and polar caps melt, sea levels rise and fall drastically. Deserts and rainforests move around.

All of that is true.

I know that it's good to flip things around and ask if they're actually true, this should be done all the time.

But CO2 IS causing climate change (with very, very high certainty) and those CO2 levels are mostly man made. It's good to be controversial but you must also really examine the vast majorities case thoroughly.

I see that LaMar has made some good factual points and arguments that further strengthen what I say.

Comment deleted

I don't know if you were answering me or not. But your facts are decent.
FYI - The Rio20 has just concluded and there will be an update in the next
couple of days or weeks.

I live at the beach on the central California coast. Summer has mostly cloudy
and foggy weather. But inland temps can reach 120F. And, even
at the beach, for about 6 days in late summer, we can get over 100F
if a Santa Ana Wind helps out. I do not take the heat well. No A/C.

The Santa Ana Wind's start from the Rocky Mts of Colorado, flow down
through Utah's Bonneville Basin, across the Mohave Desert and
rush out to sea for about 200 miles. That is a hot hot wind.

One time while fishing, I stood at the end of an ocean-pier at 9am
It was 90+degrees that morning. When the Santa Ana wind stopped.
the temp dropped 40 degrees in 1 minute. What a relief.

===
Jake is avoiding me, but that's fine. Perhaps he will seek other than TV
to support his calls.

Comment deleted

Jun 26 2013:
LaMar,
I lived 6 years in the mountains of Utah. One of those years we had
snowfall like you explained.

Weather is usually fairly predictable. When attending the county fair
that was held in August, the first day a polo shirt was fine. But the
second day you had to bring a jacket, every year.

It was interesting when Mt. Saint Helens popped her cork. For about
3 days the high winds aloft dropped ash on us all. It was like snowfall.
It felt gritty and mush-like in quantities. We finally used fire hoses to
get rid of it. What a mess. We lived a mile high on the side of a hill.
I cannot remember what it was like on the Salt Lake side of the Mtn.

I'm going to study the Rio20 conference. Maybe there is something
that can be used to get to the bottom of things.

Jun 26 2013:
Yeah it's getting warmer guys. Why are humans the cause? Because when you were a kid it was cooler right? What about 100 years before you were born, and a 1000 years before that, much cooler than today. It's all cyclic guys! But on cycles much longer than your lifetime. Fall 2013 is also the solar maximum, so solar energy output is extremely high. No sun spots right now.

Jun 26 2013:
Jake,
I feel the same. Only it's political. The voters dance and
the country gets run by an idiot. I know, wrong topic...
===
We've been told that the storms would get worse. They did.
Oklahoma last week and the week before. Alberta last week
and this week. The Alberta flood covered 350 miles. And the
body count isn't finished yet.

Don't forget the Perfect Storm and Katrina.

Jake, Our planet is changing. We are a part of that change.
You can ignore things. That is all right. But, when the
nut cutting starts, be prepared.
===
My Father was recognized as the first rain-maker, National Geo
did a small piece on his seeding clouds with silver iodide crystals.
Both he and his partner named Hatfield, seeded by aircraft and later
by burning the stuff in a barrel of an old pickup truck. He would drive
around an area a couple hundred miles from his target. Farmers
made up co-ops, put $10k up and he came and made it rain. He
seldom failed, but the Wiley farmers seldom paid. For 6 months
after his death, the phone never stopped ringing. His methods
are used today, in a smaller different format.

A radio station in Little Rock bet him he couldn't give them 3 inches
of rain in 60 days. He gave them 6 inches in 45 days. The radio
station reneged on the bet. Story of his life.

When Williams Arizona was paying to have train cars bring in their
drinking water, he filled the reservoir. He was a great guy. Google
rainmaker.

So, Jake, when you do your research, consider that others were
there before you. Sometimes... things are not like they seem.
Motive has a lot to do with making videos and movies... Ya think?

Jul 24 2013:
Here's my two cents worth. Yes human activity is having a measurable effect on the Earth's climate. No in the really big time scale it won't make any difference because the patterns of the past tell us that a few million years from now when most of the land mass comes back together the next glaciation will start. Yes the next glaciation will kill the vast majority of humans. In the mean time though if all the talk about global warming allows us to wean ourselves off oil before it gets so expensive we end up having WW3 over it, then that's probably a good outcome. So, buy that electric car, build those solar powerplants and recycle whatever you can. It makes sense either way.

Jul 24 2013:
Aren't you forgetting about the greenhouse effect, which is that if the amount of carbon dioxide reaches a certain level in the atmosphere it will act like a thermal blanket, letting cosmic radiation in but not letting it out, causing the planet to pass a tipping point where it begins to grow increasingly and irreversibly hot?

Jul 24 2013:
There is very little evidence to support that theory, which is actually called runaway green house. The "greenhouse Effect" has been occurring to differing levels since the Earth cooled enough to have a gaseous atnosphere. If you remove the affect of the natural green house effect the Earth would be covered in permafrost.

Jul 24 2013:
Mmmm.... So I used the totally dependable Internet to fact-check you, and you're right. It's called the "runaway greenhouse effect." But it's not a theory in the sense that it happened to Venus and will happen to this planet in 2 billion years. However, you're right in that it probably won't happen, but the 'probably' is a very tenuous one:

"So the question now becomes this: can the anthropological emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere push us close enough to this limit to trigger a runaway greenhouse?

Goldblatt and Watson have an answer: “The good news is that almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that it is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of noncondensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.”

But there is an important caveat. Atmospheric physics is so complex that climate scientists have only a rudimentary understanding of how it works. For example, Goldblatt and Watson admit that the above conclusion takes no account of the role that clouds might play in this process.

And scientists’ ignorance of the processes at work raises a significant question mark. As Goldblatt and Watson put it: “Is there any missed physics or weak assumptions that have been made, which if corrected could mean that the runaway is a greater risk? We cannot answer this with the conﬁdence which would make us feel comfortable.”

That’s something worth worrying about. What’s needed, of course, is a major effort to better understand the physics of warm moist atmospheres and something like this is indeed happening."

Jul 24 2013:
Aren't we conceded. Look at what mankind has done to the climate.

Paul has listed the thousands of scientist who have concluded it was the industrial revolution that created the end to the end.... He has access to NOAA where data is stored.
first, when a list of all the scientists is run.... not all are that convinced.... but no matter... there is a least one.
But here is my question that after this ongoing conversation since Al first came out.... If we stop everything and go back to pre industrial days....will the earth correct the "insults" and return to a more stable clime? And will that stable clime last forever? or at least a long time?
And here is one more question that I haven't found the answer.... what effect of the solar system's position in the revolution around the galaxy influenced the solar clime and by extension the earth's clime.... Someone get back to me,
I'm curious...

"So here's the thing. It sounds like a simple question. Is CO2 produced by man's activities causing the planet to warm up? But to answer that question, to make a clear attribution to carbon dioxide, you have to know something about all of these other agents of change. But the fact is we do know a lot about all of those things. You know, thousands of scientists have been working on understanding all of these man-made causes and the natural causes. And we've got it worked out, and we can say, "Yes, CO2 is causing the planet to warm up now."

"That's the Ross Sea Ice Shelf on the right there. So, this huge floating ice shelf the size of Alaska comes from West Antarctica. Now, West Antarctica is the part of the continent where the ice is grounded on sea floor as much as 2,000 meters deep. So that ice sheet is partly floating, and it's exposed to the ocean, to the ocean heat."

"This is the part of Antarctica that we worry about. Because it's partly floating, you can imagine, is sea level rises a little bit, the ice lifts off the bed, and then it can break off and float north. When that ice melts, sea level rises by six meters. "

"But here's the key thing: you know, the other thing we found out is that the ice sheet passed a threshold, that the planet warmed up enough -- and the number's about one degree to one and a half degrees Centigrade -- the planet warmed up enough that it became ... that ice sheet became very dynamic and was very easily melted. And you know what? We've actually changed the temperature in the last century just the right amount. So many of us are convinced now that West Antarctica, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is starting to melt. We do expect to see a sea-level rise on the order of one to two meters by the end of this century. And it could be larger than that."

Jul 1 2013:
I talk more about the Scientific Method in my reply to Jake below.

Scientists, use the Scientific Method and the Rules of Science to check up on the Universe. They discover things that make our world today possible.

Now, they all seem say one thing together: Worry! Justifiably, that scares me a little. Sometimes it scares me a lot. Why? Because I know how SCIENCE works! Specifically, it's all about the Scientific Method! Scientist's work using proven methods. And the RULES are concrete & rock solid as far as what has to go on to make things possible & then make what's scientifically possible into an iPad.

Scientists do their thing. They first come up w/the idea of the internet. Then they experiment. They prove it is possible for the Department of Defense. They build it. They perfect it. Then after a while, they make it possible for all of the rest of us! Next, Al Gore comes along and tells us that he invented the internet. Buzzard droppings! Science did that!

Scientists compete like professional athletes. They politic & wheedle & wrangle, & plot like the rest of us. And they check up on each other's homework like you would not believe! They all want to get it RIGHT. That's the big payoff. That is what makes you a superstar. Einstein had competitors who hated him. But they could NOT prove him wrong. They could only prove him right. Einstein was lucky & he was good

Know what Albert Einstein looks like? He's a superstar scientist. He made the big nuclear discovery. The rest is history. But being a superstar is nothing to a true scientist. The SCIENCE is the big thing! The Science is the only thing!

When the Scientists say WORRY, I have no choice but to pay attention! Global Warming? Yeah! Maybe Al Gore invented Global Warming just like he invented the internet! Al Gore can say what he wants. He's not the one I listen to. I listen to the Scientists. If they say worry, maybe I should! And not just on Global Warming, either!

Jun 26 2013:
Jake,
Let's take this a step further. The existence of man on earth is a negligible impact. I find it amusing at the hubris of men who wail about the dreadful things that mankind is doing to the earth. All in all, we are barely surviving. Not only are humans faced with the natural obstacles that portend extinction, we spend an inordinate amount of time doing each other in.

Some say we are God's children. I say that mankind proves God has a sense of humor. It is touted that man is on top of the food chain and even that is wistful thinking. Half of mankind doesn't eat enough and the other half eats to much.
Then there is the claim of intelligence. We have recorded our activity over the last 5 to 8 thousand years and keep repeating every dumb thing ever done over and over. Even dogs will only bite a skunk once.
On the topic at hand, we can examine what has happened in the past concerning global climate. We find that it has been all over the place. What will it be in the future. No one has the slightest idea. Anyone that says he knows... tell him to go buy a lottery ticket, if he wins he can come back and tell his tale. His chances on picking the right numbers are as good as his chances of guessing the future of the climate.
Jake, one more thing, people will suggest that the proponents of these claims are highly educated PHDs.
Let me give you a clue... any PHD that says his findings are 100%, positively, absolutely accurate is not highly educated. He is a con artist out to get your money.

Jun 26 2013:
I'm glad this debate is getting attention and flaring tempers as i knew it would. We need people to get passionate about their views and beliefs in science. We shouldn't be afraid to ask difficult questions or propose controversial ideas. I think some people are misunderstanding my debate and assuming I am for the continued burning of fossil fuels, which is not the case. People tend to associate themselves in groups. I this case you're either in the group of "CO2 increasing is a joke, long live oil companies! " or the other group "CO2 is caused by humans, we're all going to die!" My sentiment is that we should make efforts to mitigate our dependency and decrease polution and the effects of over-population, but that our warming trend is cyclic and the earth will continue it's dynamic climate. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and life flourished, great plant food, which in turn increased oxygen levels. And even though humans are responsible for increased current CO2 levels, we can still change and stop interfering with natural processes. The tipping point of 400ppm is not true, we will not perish, we will adapt to climate change and eventually the earth will start to cool. Humans in 45,000 years might try and introduce greenhouse gases to stop the glaciers from advancing, who knows. It's all cyclical.

Comment deleted

Jun 30 2013:
Hi Jake, This is a good debate to have. My point here is simple. Scientists follow rules. Those rules are called the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is taught in high school. Check it on Wikipedia.

Do you have a car? Thank the Scientific Method for the basic discoveries that made all that possible. Do you own a TV. Thank the Scientific Method. Do you have a personal computer? Thank the Scientific Method. How about a cell phone, Hot & cold running water, air conditioning, food, clothing, insulated homes - all that comes from the Scientific Method. That's how Scientists were able to discover & prove how the world works. All that is the Scientific Method. That's the way that Engineering Scientists were able to engineer the good technology stuff we enjoy today. That's what improves stuff.

Now let's make this personal! Your profile says that you are a field service engineer. That means you probably use technology every day. You might install or repair or service all kinds of wonderful engineering. Most of that probably did not exist or was not even possible when I was born. Some of the best stuff you use, might not have been even thought of when YOU were born! Technology is that impressive. You know that.

Now let's make this even more personal. Have a tool box? Do a Wikipedia search, by name, on every single took you have in your kit. That means everything from the electronics you may use to hammers & nails & screws. On every page, the Scientific Method & that KIND of THINKING & THOSE RULES made it all possible.

So Global Warming is a Big Political Issue! Big Deal! Politicians can all go buzzard themselves for all I care. They milk important issues like Global Warming for all they are worth. And that does no one any good! But here is the rub for me! And by "rub" - I mean the BIG problem!

Jul 1 2013:
Jake, I'm going to continue this both here & in the box above.

Scientists, using the Scientific Method and the Rules of Science say one thing: Worry! Justifiably, that scares me a little. Sometimes it scares me a lot. Why? Because I know how SCIENCE works! Specifically, it's all about the Scientific Method! Scientist's work using proven methods. And the RULES are concrete & rock solid as far as what has to go on to make things possible & then make what's scientifically possible into an iPad.

Scientists do their thing. They first come up w/the idea of the internet. Then they experiment. They prove it is possible for the Department of Defense. They build it. They perfect it. Then after a while, they make it possible for all of the rest of us! Next, Al Gore comes along and tells us that he invented the internet. Buzzard droppings! Science did that!

Scientists compete like professional athletes. They politic & wheedle & wrangle, & plot like the rest of us. And they check up on each other's homework like you would not believe! They all want to get it RIGHT. That's the big payoff. That is what makes you a superstar.

Know what Albert Einstein looks like? He's a superstar scientist. He made the big nuclear discovery. The rest is history. But the SCIENCE is the big thing! It's the only thing!

Jul 1 2013:
I'm not questioning the scientific method, I'm questioning the variables and controls used. Sure, it is a known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, nobody is disputing that. However, it's the predictions regarding it's global impact that myself and many other scientist question. It's like knowing what happens inside the singularity of a super-massive black hole. There are missing variables and scientist draw the best conclusions based on the information available. That's why there are many hypothesis and possible outcomes. The same is true of our climate. There are many variables when it comes to climate predictions that climatologist are simply guessing at. For me it easy, just look at our past. Look at the earth's history and see what CO2 has done in the past and if life has flourished. Is the earth currently in an abnormally low state of CO2? Answer....yes. One of the lowest levels in earth history. The oceans aren't going to boil because of a .01 percent global atmospheric increase in CO2.

Jul 1 2013:
And I grudgingly agree. Although I find the rhetoric is persuasive (i.e. fewer greenhouse gasses = less pollution = a better environment = a more stable, less polluted environment for our children); the science is not unanimous. And the government knows it.

Our government does not hesitate to spend BILLIONS when all the players agree that spending the money is critically important. Here are two examples. First, remember the TARP? The government spent over 400 Billion Dollars bailing out the banks. Bush signed that into law in 2008. He originally authorized 700 Billion. There wasn't much debate about it. Why? Because everyone knew what would happen if they did NOT take that action. The entire economy might have collapsed.

In other words, every economist who looked at the numbers knew what they meant. And every economist the politicians asked about the problem said things that added up to "we're in BIG trouble!" So the politicians took their advice and acted. No sound bites. No long-loud debate. No name calling. No face-making. Everybody got in line & got it done. That much tax money going to bankers is always suspect. But nobody complained because everyone knew the alternative was really BAD!

By contrast, the Manhattan Project cost less than 2 billion dollars (28 billion in 2013 dollars). That project, arguably, had a much bigger impact on world history. That project cost the equivalent of 9 days of all the other fighting going on [Wikipedia]. Also, the bomb ended WW II & saved millions of lives.

These examples tell me two things. First, Scientific Research is a great way to spend government money. But only if it is spent on good science. That assertion seems to have proven out in many different ways. Second, if global warming was all that bad right now, we'd find a way to fix it, right now! The Scientific Jury is still out as to how bad it will be in 20, 40, or 60 years. Better to find THAT out now & plan for a fix while we can.

Jul 2 2013:
I think a healthy paranoia of climate change is a good safety precaution. Scientists should continue to study the effects of CO2 and it is a subject that should stay in the publics mind since industrialized humans choose to emit it into atmosphere. Humans and their machines wield great power. We shouldn't get blinded by quick progress.

My question is if the speed of climate change we have experienced in the last couple decades typical to past climate changes?

Jul 2 2013:
Yeah you're right Brian, if not paranoia, what else would be as effective at pushing change? Doubtful anything. Climate has changed this rapidly in the past. At the end of the LGM (last glacial maximum) the earth was warming significantly. The ice free corridor had opened up in Beringia and humans were taking advantage of the warm weather and bountiful fauna, expanding into new lands. Then around 13000 years ago, the climate cooled very rapidly. Within a matter of a few decades, the earth had returned to an ice age which lasted for 1000 years. This event is known as the Younger Dryas Period, and was thought to have been caused when Lake Agassiz flooded the Atlantic through Hudson Bay, disrupting the salinity levels which affected ocean currents. So climate change can and has changed rapidly through natural processes.

Jun 26 2013:
Recommendations Jake? Do we try our hand at stabilizing or do we push it and take it to it's new medium hoping it will adjust? People should read Revelation as that book has some strange passages that don't make sense ( I'm not preaching) but it's like it was written forward in time.

Jun 26 2013:
Jake - W H E R E E L S E can we live? Why go see an MD if we don't listen to what they say? The best climate people are concerned. The big critics of this have afinancial agenda that would be impacted by responsible action. If you are concerned, don't be Bubbles always seem to eventually P O P.

Comment deleted

Jun 26 2013:
Lol no. Although I see how you could make that assumption. FSE for security, I work on X-ray equipment at Denver International Airport. Again, I don't think we should continue burning fossil fuels, I just don't agree with climate predictions based on current CO2 levels.

Jul 1 2013:
So YOU are the guy who makes it possible for the TSA to X-ray my underwear! No wonder Al Qada want it that way! Makes sense to me!

Jake, I like the way you have set up this debate. This creature (thread) has gotten a good start & you are keeping it focused. I admire that. You are pointing out inconsistencies in the data & that works. But scientists cite the work of other scientists. They push each other around based upon the data. Then they go back & do more research. Scientists like to 1) be correct & 2) win debates & 3) win the Nobel Prize because they were right all along & saved the world.

Links do help, they work as citations to your data & are harder to discount or argue with. If you link to a noted climate scientist, that scientist is much harder to argue with. A climate scientist talking about how 'Climate Change is NOT real!' & how I should NOT believe in it - I would find that persuasive. But the data has to be from a science journal & not Fox News.

If you look at my comments above, I am confident that the scientists will ultimately win this debate. They just have to get their act together & agree. Economists are Economic Scientists. When they all reach the same consensus, that means the science leaves no room for the Politicians to argue about it. As I see it, that's what the economists did over the TARP debate. On TARP, the overwhelming consensus seemed to be: "Were screwed for now, but if we don't do TARP - we might be dead as far as the economy goes!" So they acted.

Jun 26 2013:
The only bit that was copied was that regarding Dr. Bengtesson. It is a natural phenomenon. Look up the Milankovitch Cycles. There are many climatologist that agree our current warming trend is normal and part of our current interglacial period. The problem is that when they share their opinions on the subject they are attacked and badgered by the 97 percent you speak of. It's a problem scientist face in all fields of science (i.e. the Solutrean Hypothesis). CO2 levels are close to 390ppm this is true, but not the highest since mankind. 12,700 years ago CO2 was around 425ppm. Looking at total earth history, current CO2 levels are extremely low. Ice ages have been seen in as high as 2000ppm. Periods of the Triassic and Jurassic have been as high as 8000 ppm. Don't ignore the hard data, do the real research. Use your own judgement, and you will find what is common sense, not what is so-called "common knowledge" regarding global warming.

Jun 26 2013:
I don't read RW blogs, although it's abundantly clear by how passionate you are about the subject that you are left. I don't follow politics, I prefer to draw my own conclusions, not be told by my party affiliation what is fact or fiction, right or wrong. Did you even read the paper in the link? Yes it was 12,750 years ago. Don't be so obtuse. Instead of trying to debunk the data, look into it. Don't find a way to discount it based on your personal pride or ego to "win" the debate. Research the data, ask yourself questions, and provide yourself honest answers, regardless of what you "want" to believe.

Jun 26 2013:
My post is not a copy LaMar. I'm fairly good at articulating and expressing my thoughts and conveying my points and ideas, although not professing to be a "writing virtuoso". I have been a member of TED for quite awhile and have submitted questions and debates on a wide range of topics. I enjoy watching TED Talks on youtube in my spare time. In fact, my idea of fun and entertainment is watching a program about super string theory, world history, pre-history....anything that stimulates the mind with fascination and wonder. I'm not by any means pushing an "agenda" as you suggest, and quite honestly have never heard of a denier blog. I sincerely emplore you to continue your research and draw your own conclusions. I think that mainstream scientist and historians have it right 99 percent of the time. However, sometimes they get it wrong. They laughed at those who challenged the truth, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Hubble, Alfred Wegener and the like. I am simply a curious mind and have drawn my own conclusions based on real tangible data, and I'm not alone in my reasoning, but definitely the minority. I looked at the earth's history and saw evidence of deglaciation in past interglacial periods. I looked at CO2 levels throughout earth's history and saw that life flourished in many different levels. I noticed that temperature rise preceded CO2 rise according to the ice core data. I noticed how the Laurentide Ice Shelf was immense and how much had melted, surely the melting was continuing. I started thinking, are we really having an impact on CO2, and if so, how detrimental is it to our planet. Can an extra 100 or 200 or 300 parts out of Million really cause climate to change to the point of wiping out our species? Think about ppm. An extra 100ppm is a .01 percent increase in CO2. I respect your opinion LaMar, truly. I just happen to believe a different theory. However, I am for clean energy and reduction of our dependency on fossil fuels.

Jun 26 2013:
Agreed, we should make every possible attempt to decrease our dependency. I just think that we should be prepared for more climate change, because looking at history, it's going to get hotter, CO2 or not.

Jun 26 2013:
Yes. My debate is not "to burn fossil fuels or not to burn". My view is that CO2 will not and does not have the affects that are predicted. Everyone can't deny that temperature is increasing, climste changing and sea levels rising. What people are uneducated about is the warming trend that has been occurring for the last 50,000 years and the deglaciation that is cyclic and will continue. Sea levels have risen almost 300 feet in 25,000 years, enough to inundate millions of square miles of land. People show a picture of a glacier in 1800, then in 2000 and say "See! 1800 was the beginning of the industrial revolution when we started burning fossil fuels, and look how much it has receded! Obviously it is having an effect." My response is, show me a picture of the glacier in 1700 and 1600 and a thousand years before that. The glaciers have been receding for at least 25,000 years! And data reveals that according to the cyclic patterns of warming and cooling, we will see much more melting of glaciers and polar ice. But I do think that we humans have a responsibility to mitigate our influence on the earth. Just because the affects may be minimal doesn't mean we should just trash the planet and ignore pollution.

Jul 1 2013:
Lamar Alexander,
Thank you for your comment that begins: "Well, I will have to take your word for it . . . " You sum up my thoughts exactly. To " 'err on the side of caution" is part of what it takes to successfully live in this world sometimes.

And what do you think of our 'X-ray guy' here on TED? Has he earned his own TEDtalk yet? Might he do that some day? Or is he worth even the opinion space? This guy is obviously looking for a challenge. So let's give him one. And make that a meaningful challenge while we are at it.

Jul 1 2013:
Jake Maddox, you say
"The problem is that when they share their opinions on the subject they are attacked and badgered by the 97 percent you speak of."

Yes, & that is how science works. Your citation of the Solutrean Hypothesis is a very good illustration of that. The key here is that the Solutrean Hypothesis can NOT be dismissed out of hand. The hypothesis does a good job explaining some (but not all) of the data. Once Stanford & Bradley introduced that theory in 1998, it got a lot of attention. And today, hundreds of graduate students are looking at data & evaluating what they see in light of the Solutrean Hypothesis vs the alternatives. More questions. More research.

Einstein was treated pretty poorly early on. But when people examined his data closely, many were persuaded. Then additional evidence on multiple occasions proved Einstein right! Charles Darwin faced the same thing w/his theory of Natural Selection. In the 150 years since The Origin of Species was published - Darwin has also been proven more right than wrong. But that debate is for another thread.

Wanna' be a Climate Scientist, Jake? No joke here. You ask great questions and make telling points. If you are in college, have you considered graduate school? You are obviously looking for the data. You've read widely (Solutrean hypothesis . . . ? Yes!). You ask all the right questions. Keep asking them! Go study with some real Climate Scientists at UofColorado in Boulder or Denver. Find those answers for us. There might be a PhD in it for 'ya - Doctor Maddox. Jake Maddox, PhD? THAT could happen in my lifetime. Choking on CO2 from global warming or getting flooded out of my home due to sea level rise? Not-so-much. The risk is real, but not so much when compared to a PhD for Professor Jake Maddox. You deserve a voice in the Big Debate, not-so-much for us amateurs here on these threads.

Jul 1 2013:
You're a cool and eccentric guy Juan. I can tell that you keep an open mind and base your opinions on your own judgement and reasoning, not letting youself be influenced by the meandering heard of self-proclaimed intellects

Jul 1 2013:
And yes, that's one of the nicest things anyone has said to me today. Thank you.

I have two answers to your statement. It's been a while back for me, but I once had the privilege of calling myself a Teacher. I was responsible for a classroom full of 4th graders. That was hard. But every now & then I had the opportunity to expand the possibilities for 'small minds' - & they believed! Those 9 & 10 y/o kids had a very pragmatic view that most adults lose. They never forgot that they were 'just kids.' They were all in it together (w/me trying desperately to teach them). They were always together. But for a child, the real possibilities really ARE endless. And when they SEE that, it is awesome. My own 'small mind' found that quite rewarding.

I make no judgement as to 'mind size' in Jake Maddox. You don't do that to other adults. Generally it's considered disrespectful. You are NOT a 4th grader. And your capacity for thought has clearly earned my respect. That kind of 'encouragement' is just something that Teachers do when they do it right. It's just a responsibility that 'we teachers' have. What you do with that is up to you. So I'll make it a request:

If you spend the next 60 years as an "X-ray guy," you will always have my respect. You've earned that. Let TED continue to challenge you. And when you hear one of those "large minds" on a TED talk 'hit-you-between-the-eyes-w/a-problem-you-know-that-you-can-fix." Do it. Go get educated. Go do the science. And give us old guys some hope for the future. We 'Old Guys' think about that while we sit around 'shriveling' & waiting to die.
Good luck & work hard, Mr. X-ray guy. l;).

Jun 26 2013:
I'm curious about what you read.
It certainly is a different observation than those people make that do monitor it in real time.
In fact as things look for now we can cross the North pole by boat within 20 years.

"The numbers for the southernmost ocean, however, pale in comparison with the rates at which the Arctic has been losing sea ice – the extent of the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean in September 2012 was 1.32 million square miles below the average September extent from 1979 to 2000. The lost ice area is equivalent to roughly two Alaskas.

Parkinson said that the fact that some areas of the Southern Ocean are cooling and producing more sea ice does not disprove a warming climate."

Mind you, these are comparisons of sea ice cover.
The Antarctic is a bit different because of the land-ice. From the reading I've done, the land-ice cover is still showing a decline over-all.

Jun 26 2013:
Jake,
As long as your sure about the BS.
How's about putting your evidence up for review?

The tipping point advisory was news, only the other day.
So, while your looking for your evidence, you might want to check it out.

Something else to look into...
United Nations United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Mobile Visit the electronic mobile version of the UN
Journal at meetings.un.org. Rio

Jun 26 2013:
I've compiled the majority of my data from the Science Channel, The History Channel and so forth. I started drawing my conclusions based on data that was being presented. When I started researching I discovered others had made this conclusion as well. Just look at the past and you'll have an understanding of what's in store for our future. Don't disregard sciencefact.

TED Conversations Archives

We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot.

Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience.